Beach v. Coisman
2012 SD 31
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Grandparents seek broader visitation with grandchildren amid disputes over safety concerns and supervision at the Montana ranch.
- Becky, mother of the twins, died in 2009; David, father, initially arranged continued contact with Ellen and Keith.
- Ellen and Keith sought visitation rights including Montana weekends, holidays, and extended summer visits, plus transportation costs.
- David moved for a directed verdict and for attorney’s fees at the close of the grandparents’ case; the circuit court granted both.
- Court proceeded under SDCL 25-4-52 or, alternatively, SDCL 25-5-29, to assess nonparent visitation rights against a presumption in favor of parental custody.
- Circuit court held that the nonparent petition failed to rebut the parental presumption and awarded attorney’s fees to David; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 25-4-52 applies to this dispute. | Beach argues SDCL 25-4-52 governs grandparent visitation. | Coisman asserts SDCL 25-4-52 is inapplicable and SDCL 25-5-29 controls. | Statute applied; not reversible on this point. |
| Whether nonparents rebut the parental presumption under SDCL 25-5-29/30. | Beachs cannot rebut; extraordinary circumstances shown. | David shows no parental unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. | Court did not err in finding no rebuttal and denial of relief. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. | Fees insufficiently supported by findings. | Court properly weighed reasonable and necessary factors. | Affirmed; findings adequate and reviewable. |
| Whether fit parents’ visitation determinations receive due weight under Troxel/SD law. | Parenting decisions deserve limited state intervention. | Court should defer to parent’s decisions absent extraordinary circumstances. | Court did not err; no extraordinary circumstances shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clough v. Nez, 2008 S.D. 125 (S.D. 2008) (preserves constitutional presumptions for custody before nonparents may obtain visitation)
- Feist v. Lemieux-Feist, 2010 S.D. 104 (S.D. 2010) (requires showing parental unfitness or extraordinary circumstances to rebut presumption)
- In re A.L., 2010 S.D. 33 (S.D. 2010) (recognizes limited circumstances for grandparent visitation with fit parent)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizes parental rights and limited state intervention in visitation)
- Olson v. Olson, 1996 S.D. 90 (S.D. 1996) (attorney’s fees analysis framework; abuse of discretion standard)
- Smetana v. Smetana, 2007 S.D. 5 (S.D. 2007) (require findings of fact and conclusions of law on attorney’s fees)
- Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 S.D. 103 (S.D. 2004) (review standards and sufficiency of evidence for findings)
- Edinger v. Edinger, 2006 S.D. 103 (S.D. 2006) (dual-factor analysis for attorney’s fees: reasonableness and necessity)